IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 15986 of 2013

Date of Decision : 27.11.2013

Mam Raj & others

.......... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & others

...... Respondents

*****

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present :

Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

****

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SURYA KANT

, J. (Oral)

The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 11.09.2012 and

27.11.2012 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of acquisition of their land

measuring 16 Kanal-4 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village

Gurawar, District Jhajjar, which has been acquired to construct the Water

Works for a group of three villages under the Water Supply Scheme of

Jhajjar Town.

2.

The principal contention of the petitioners is that close to their

acquired land, there lies a huge chunk of Gram Panchayat land of village

Jondhi, who has passed a resolution to give 4 acres of land free of cost for

the aforementioned purpose. It was on this premise that we called upon the

respondents.

Satyawan

2014.01.10 10:02

"I attested to the accuracy and

integrity of this document"

High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 15986 of 2013

2

3.

On the previous date of hearing, the State counsel on the basis

of written instructions made a statement that the land offered by Gram

Panchayat of village Jondhi was not a suitable site for the notified public

purpose for the reasons that (i) it is a low lying area and (ii) it is not

centrally located to cater the need of water supply to three villages.

4.

In the circumstances, we also explored the possibility as to

whether the petitioners are willing to accept the land offered by Gram

Panchayat, Jondhi in lieu of their acquired land.

5.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land

offered by the Gram Panchayat being Banjar Kadim is not acceptable to the

petitioners. He, however, submits that the higher authorities sould give a

serious thought to the proposal to utilise the land of Gram Panchayat,

Jondhi and on such consideration they would find the alternative site

equally suitable.

6.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the records.

7.

Since the bona-fide of the public purpose of acquisition is not

in dispute and the acquisition having been made by following the due

procedure, no fault can be found with the impugned notifications. However,

having regard to the plea taken by the petitioners, we dispose of this petition

with a direction to the Principal Secretary to State of Haryana, Department

of Public Health Engineering, to give an opportunity of personal hearing to

the petitioners and objectively consider the proposal put up by them. Let

this exercise be undertaken within one month from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order. The above mentioned authority is expected to

Satyawan

2014.01.10 10:02

"I attested to the accuracy and

integrity of this document"

High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 15986 of 2013

3

pass a speaking order.

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE

(SURINDER GUPTA)

JUDGE

27.11.2013

'Satyawan'

Satyawan

2014.01.10 10:02

"I attested to the accuracy and

integrity of this document"

High Court Chandigarh